Chapter 5
The developing strength of Normandy during the reign of Duke William was due in the first instance to the rise of a new aristocracy, and to the identification of its interests with those of the duke. But the growth of Norman power during this period was never wholly secular, either in its causes or consequences, and the achievement of William the Conqueror was to depend also in large measure on an ecclesiastical revival in the province, which had already begun at the time of his accession, but which gathered increasing momentum in his time. The interconnexion between the secular and ecclesiastical strength of Normandy was, in fact, to become so close by the third quarter of the eleventh century that there is even some danger of forgetting that it was then of comparatively recent growth. The collapse of ecclesiastical life in the province of Rouen at the time of the Viking wars was in truth only slowly repaired. The first definite evidence that the bishoprics of Normandy had been fully reconstituted comes from a text of 990.1 And of the ten principal religious houses existing in Normandy at the time of William's accession, only four had been reconstituted before 1000,2 and four more had been founded or re-established since his birth.3 These facts deserve some emphasis. The ecclesiastical development of Normandy during the earlier half of the eleventh century was almost as remarkable as the growth at the same time of its secular strength, and unless it be explained no assessment of what was accomplished by the greatest Norman duke can hope to be adequate.
Two major factors can be watched in this process. In the first place, there was a monastic revival which began under ducal sponsorship and continued on highly original lines. And secondly there took place a reorganization of the Norman church by a strong group of bishops acting in close co-operation with the duke. Of these, it was the monastic movement which was to entail the more notable consequences. Indeed the growth of Norman monasticism during the decades immediately preceding the Norman conquest was so remarkable that it has properly attracted the attention of a long succession of historians, and even now its dramatic character may still excite wonder. Less than a hundred years before the accession of William the Conqueror it is probable that not a single monastery survived in the province of Rouen. The houses were desolate, the congregations dispersed. A few of these had, it is true, maintained a precarious existence by migration. Thus certain of the monks of Jumièges had departed to Haspres in the diocese of Cambrai, whilst others from Fontanelle had gone to Picardy and subsequently to Flanders.4 But in general the destruction had been complete. Yet little more than a century later – on the eve of the Norman conquest of England – Normandy, plentifully filled with religious houses, was renowned for its monastic life.
Scarcely less notable than the rapidity of this spectacular transformation was the part played by the Viking dynasty in bringing it about. It is possible that, by virtue of the comital status he had acquired, Rolf had been given custody of the abbeys within thecomtéof Rouen, but later assertions of his monastic benefactions must be received with some caution.5 On the other hand, a very strong tradition asserts that his son William Longsword had been actively interested in projects to resuscitate monastic life in his dominion.6In particular, he is said to have welcomed back to Jumièges monks from that congregation who were at Haspres, and to have begun the rebuilding of that monastery to which he brought other monks from the abbey of Saint-Cyprien at Poitiers.7Legend undoubtedly magnified the part played by William Longsword as a champion of Christianity, but it would be rash to assert that later Norman monasticism owed nothing to his acts.
The pagan reaction which followed his murder arrested any progress in this direction which may have been made, and it was not until after the pact between Duke Richard I and Lothair in 965 that any appreciable advance can be discerned. Here again, moreover, the primary impulse seems to have come from the ducal dynasty, and now it was to be reinforced by an influence radiating from the abbey of Saint Peter's, Ghent, under the direction of Saint Gérard of Broigne. The impact of this Flemish movement upon Normandy could, for instance, be illustrated with particular clarity in the fortunes of the dispersed congregation of Fontanelle which, as has been seen, had after some wanderings reached Flanders. A desire to re-establish the ancient monastery of Fontanelle had long inspired the followers of Saint Gérard. And in 960 to 961 there departed from Ghent to Normandy a small party of monks under the leadership of one of Gérard's disciples named Mainard. These obtained from Duke Richard I the devastated site of Fontanelle, and there they began to reconstruct a new religious house in honour of Saint-Wandrille. Other monks came in due course to join them, and Mainard acquired books and ornaments from Ghent. The re-establishment of Fontanelle under its new style of Saint-Wandrille was thus achieved.8
The work of Mainard in Normandy entailed considerable consequences. He only remained a few years at Fontanelle which after his departure seems to have suffered a decline. But in due course Duke Richard transferred him to Le Mont-Saint-Michel. The reconstitution of the famous sanctuary on the Mount was indeed one of the most important acts of Richard the Fearless. Carried out by the ducal energy, with the authority of the pope, and with the collaboration of Archbishop Hugh of Rouen, it was confirmed by a charter of Lothair.9 Monks were installed in place of canons, and the community received possessions and privileges.10 Mainard himself was to rule this community for twenty-five years, and his influence, supported by the duke, was widespread.11Jumièges, for instance, received new ducal grants at this time, and Saint-Ouen experienced a revival. In short, the significance of the latter part of the reign of Richard I in the growth of Norman monasticism has perhaps been unduly minimized, and Mainard's own career and achievements would probably repay a closer study. The effects of the Flemish monastic revival on the English church in the age of Dunstan and Ethelwold have been well established. Its influence on the development and monastic life in Normandy has been less generally appreciated.
The dominant external influence on the Norman monasticism which was to be developed under William the Conqueror as duke, was, however, derived not from Flanders but from Cluny, or at least from the movement which, starting at Cluny, achieved new life at centres such as Dijon.12 The transition can best be watched in connexion with yet another Norman monastery. Among the ecclesiastical benefactions of Duke Richard I none were more notable than those to Fécamp to which he was particularly attached. There he established a community of secular canons to serve the fine new church which he had built. But the canons, as it would seem, proved unworthy of their task, and some time late in his reign Duke Richard I took the important step of appealing to Maieul, abbot of Cluny, to send monks to replace them. The appeal was at first unsuccessful but after the duke's death it entailed a decisive result. In 1001 at the invitation of Duke Richard II, there came to Fécamp, William of Dijon, whose arrival was to inaugurate a new era in the monastic growth of Normandy.13 He was to remain abbot of Fécamp for more than a quarter of a century, and in due course to pass on his policy to his great successor Abbot John, who survived until 1079.14 His influence was, in fact, to determine the character that Norman monasticism assumed during the reign of William the Conqueror.
William of Volpiano, or of Dijon,15 was of noble Piedmontese stock. He had been at Cluny under Maieul and had been sent in 989 by that abbot to reform the ancient monastery of Saint-Benigne of Dijon. From there his activities rapidly spread so that it was to a man of high reputation in the European church that Duke Richard II made his appeal. At first the famous abbot was reluctant to undertake the mission, alleging the barbarous conditions still surviving in the Viking province. But at length the duke's insistence prevailed, and though William of Dijon never confined his attention to Normandy, it was there that his greatest work was done. As a result, Norman monasticism was henceforth dominated not only by Cluniac ideas, but on the individual adaptation of those ideas supplied by his highly original mind. The earliest centre of this development was of course Fécamp itself, where a new monastic community was forthwith established, but the great abbot's influence speedily radiated throughout the province. Thus he is alleged to have introduced reforms at Saint-Ouen and Jumièges, and according to a later writer he also had Le Mont-Saint-Michel ‘under his rule’.16 Moreover, such was his ascendancy that when in the ten years before the Conqueror's accession new ducal foundations were made in Normandy, these in their turn were modelled according to his ideas. Bernay in this manner was founded in about 1026 by the Duchess Judith,17 and of the same character were the two monasteries set up during the reign of Duke Robert I, the one at Cerisy-la-Forêt, and the other dedicated to the Holy Trinity on Saint Catherine's Mount at Rouen.18 Of similar pattern were two nunneries: the one established at Montivilliers, and the other dedicated to Saint-Amand in Rouen.19
The reviving Norman monasticism which Duke William inherited in 1035 and which was so signally to be developed during his reign had thus become Cluniac in spirit, even as it had been ducal in direction. Traces of the earlier influence from Flanders remained, it is true, at Le Mont-Saint-Michel and at Saint-Wandrille, whence it might in part be transmitted to the daughter houses of Fontanelles at Préaux and Grestain. But the main stimulus was now from Cluny, whose influence, modified by William of Dijon and Richard of Saint-Vannes, was predominant.20 Nor could the ducal connexion with the movement be ignored or its essential character masked. It is noteworthy that among the foundations made by Norman dukes before 1035 all save two were made on the sites of ancient religious houses, so that this endeavour can legitimately be held to reflect a conscious attempt made by the Viking dynasty to revive the flourishing ecclesiastical life of Neustria, which had been all but annihilated in the Viking wars.
Further justification for this opinion could be found if reference was made to the endowments which the new ducal monasteries had received. For these were, as it would seem, frequently made from lands which had previously been held by the abbeys that had been destroyed, or from estates over which the dukes, by virtue of an earlier tradition of secular authority, had come to claim custody. Thus Cerisy-la-Forêt in the time of Duke William's father received estates which had earlier belonged to the destroyed abbeys of Deux-Jumeaux, Saint-Fromond, and Saint-Marculf, whilst Holy Trinity, about the same time, acquired some of the lands of the earlier monastery of Saint-Philibert.21 Other restitutions of a similar nature were undoubtedly made in this period, and even apart from these the direct benefactions of the ducal house were most notable. Of the ten religious houses which William found in existence in Normandy at the time of his accession – Jumièges, Saint-Wandrille, Le Mont-Saint-Michel, Saint-Ouen, Fécamp, Bernay, Cerisy, Montivilliers and Holy Trinity, Rouen, and Saint-Amand – all owed their foundation or re-establishment, directly or indirectly, to ducal action. The young Duke William thus succeeded to a tradition of monastic patronage which had become a characteristic feature of Norman ducal authority.
Moreover, while the ducal dynasty had established itself as the guardian of monastic life within Normandy, so also were the re-established Norman monasteries linking their own temporal fortunes to those of the duchy. Before the Viking wars, the monasteries of this region had held estates widely scattered throughout Gaul. Thus Fontanelles in addition to its possessions in the valley of the Lower Seine had held lands in Picardy, in Provence, in Saintonge, and in Burgundy, whilst Jumièges had possessed estates in Anjou, Maine, Poitou, and the Vexin.22 Even after the restorations which were gradually and imperfectly made during the tenth century, the Norman monasteries still sought to retain their rights over possessions outside as well as within Normandy. During the three decades before William's accession, however, this policy was reversed, and the Norman monasteries now began to show themselves anxious to concentrate their landed wealth within the dominions of the Norman duke. Thus Jumiéges in 1012 ceded one of its Poitevin estates to the abbey of Bourgeuil in exchange for lands near Vernon, and in 1024 dispensed with Haspres by a similar arrangement with the monks of Saint-Vedast of Arras.23 The abbey of Saint-Wandrille adopted the same procedure,24 and from this time forward, with the partial exception of the abbey of Le Mont-Saint-Michel, the Norman monasteries appear to have renounced until after 1066 any policy of enriching themselves outside the duchy. By 1035 they had come in short to identify their territorial fortunes with the secular development and expansion of Normandy itself.
The development of Norman monasticism during the reign of Duke William was thus conditioned by a complex tradition which had already linked the dynasty with monastic restoration, and was merging the interests of the reformed monasteries with those of the Norman duchy. Nevertheless, the new reign was to witness a phase of monastic growth in Normandy which was in every way notable, and which was marked by its own especial features. Not only was the earlier tradition sustained, but its operation was enlarged, and this was brought about by a new wave of enthusiasm and of patronage. In 1035, as has been seen, all the religious houses of the province had owed their eleventh-century existence to the ducal dynasty. Now a new influence was brought to bear on this growth. Already in 1030 it was at the instigation of Goscelin, vicomte of Rouen, and Emmeline his wife, that Duke Robert I had granted the foundation charter to Holy Trinity, Rouen,25 to which the venerated relics of Saint Catherine had come some time between 1033 and 1054.26 And Goscelin and Emmeline had also been influential, a few years later, in establishing the nunnery of Saint-Amand.27 It was typical of a new type of patronage that was soon to be dominant in the duchy. After Robert I's death no new ducal monastery was to be founded in Normandy until in 1063 William and Matilda set up their twin houses at Caen. None the less, between 1035 and 1066 at least twenty new religious houses were established in the duchy. They owed their origin to members of the new aristocracy, and this fervent activity is not the least surprising feature of the acts of that astonishing group of interrelated families. It commands attention, even though it may baffle full explanation.
For this movement was sudden. Not only had the new nobility taken little direct share in the earlier monastic foundations, but in their rise to power they had frequently enriched themselves at the expense of the Church. Jumièges, Saint-Wandrille, and Le Mont-Saint-Michel had all, for example, suffered particular losses in this respect.28 Yet between 1035 and 1050, when the ducal power was in partial eclipse, this same competitive aristocracy addressed itself to the development of Norman monastic life and, until 1066, took over much of the patronage which had earlier been exercised by the dukes. This endeavour was in fact so general that it commanded the admiring eulogy of a later monk. At this time, remarked Ordericus Vitalis, in a famous passage,29 the nobles of Normandy, imitating the actions of their dukes, vied with one another in monastic benefactions to such an extent that any one of these magnates held himself cheap if he had not established, and endowed, clerks, or monks, on his estates. In such language there may of course be detected overtones of enthusiasm. But the factual record of the origins of Norman monasteries supplied by Robert of Torigny shows that there was here no undue exaggeration.30
It is indeed hard to avoid monotony in recalling the particular foundations made by the new aristocracy in Normandy between 1035 and 1066, for few of the great feudal families whose rise then took place failed to contribute something to this endeavour. Thus about 1035 Roger I of Tosny established a monastery at Châtillon, and about the same time Humphrey of Vieilles founded two houses at Préaux – the one, Saint-Pierre, for men, and the other, Saint-Léger, for women.31 The Countess Lesceline and her son Robert, count of Eu, were responsible for the abbey of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives, and later the same Count Robert set up the abbey of Saint-Michel-du-Tréport.32 Herluin, vicomte of Conteville, his wife Herleve, and his son Robert, count of Mortain, founded the abbey of Grestain; and before 1055 Ralph Tesson, a member of a notable family in middle Normandy, established the monastery of Fontenay.33 William fitz Osbern, son of Duke Robert's steward, in like manner established the abbey of Lire, and subsequently followed this up with a similar foundation at Cormeilles.34 In Upper Normandy, the house of Saint Victor-en-Caux was set up by Roger of Mortemer as a priory of Saint-Ouen, whilst farther to the west Odo ‘au Capel’ and Robert Bertram, both of whom held for a time the title ofvicomte of the Cotentin, respectively established the monasteries of Lessay and Beaumont-en-Auge.35 Finally (to cite no more examples), the family of Montgomery was responsible during these years for no less than three foundations: Saint-Martin at Sées, Saint-Martin at Troarn, and the nunnery at Almenéches.36 It was by any standard a most vigorous movement of patronage, and it must further be noted that these men did not confine their benefactions to those houses which they themselves had founded. Roger I of Tosny made lavish gifts not only to his own foundation at Châtillon but also to Lire, whilst his son Ralph III was a benefactor of Saint-Évroul, La Croix-Saint-Leuffroi, and Jumièges.37 Richard, count of Évreux, likewise, made gifts to Jumièges; and Saint-Wandrille could count among its benefactors William, count of Arques, and Roger of Beaumont.38 Among those who endowed the nunnery of Saint-Amand in Rouen was Baldwin, son of Gilbert of Brionne, and William fitz Osbern, in addition to founding Lire and Cormeilles, made substantial gifts to Holy Trinity, Rouen.39
As a result of this widespread activity, Normandy before 1066 had become famous throughout north-western Europe for the number of its monasteries. But their distribution within the duchy needs also to be remarked. Of the ten ducal houses no less than eight lay within a restricted area round Rouen. In the metropolitan city itself there were three: Saint-Ouen, Holy Trinity, and Saint-Amand. A little farther down the Seine were Jumièges and Saint-Wandrille, whilst near its mouth was Montivilliers, and some fifteen miles north-east of this was Fécamp. On the other side of the capital but not far distant from it was Bernay. Only Le Mont-Saint-Michel – a shrine of immemorable antiquity – lay isolated on its island facing the Atlantic, and it was not until about 1030 that Cerisy-la-Forêt was established in the diocese of Bayeux. In short, the ducal monasteries were concentrated very notably in the region dominated by the Christian capital of the dukes.
The aristocratic endowments were to enlarge this area since the new foundations were made on the estates of the nobles who established them. None the less, it was still central Normandy that continued to receive the bulk of the new religious houses. The majority of these were in fact in the area watered by the Seine, the Risle, the Touques, and the Dives. Le Bee was but some twenty miles from Jumièges, less from Bernay, and only about fifteen miles from the two religious houses at Préaux. A circle of some fifteen miles radius could be made to include Préaux, Cormeilles, and Grestain, all situated between the Risle and the Touques, whilst a circle of twelve miles radius could be made to surround the monasteries of Châtillon, Saint-Taurin, and Lire which lay between the Risle and the Seine. Lire, moreover, was but about twenty miles from Saint-Évroul, and Saint-Évroul less than that distance from the neighbouring houses of Almenéches and Saint-Martin of Sées. On the Dives, also were Troarn and, some twelve miles distant from it, the abbey of Saint-Pierre. The multiplication of monastic foundations at this period in central Normandy is indeed most notable.
Outside this area, however, the foundations were less numerous. Between 1059 and 1066 there was, it is true, a definite movement of colonization from Fécamp which included not only a migration to Bonneville-sur-Touques, where in due course the priory of Saint Martin-du-Bosc was founded, but also a mission of monks farther to the west which resulted eventually in the establishment of the priory of Saint-Gabriel by the lords of Creully.40 In the diocese of Bayeux there was also Fontenay, not far from Cerisy-la-Forêt, whilst Saint-Vigor arose outside the walls of the cathedral city. Again, at Le Tréport the counts of Eu erected their own monastic bastion of Normandy towards the east, and when Lessay arose to look upon the Atlantic from the west of the Cotentin, it was a symbol of an extension of the movement, this time into the most distant part of a backward diocese. Despite all these foundations, it none the less remains true that before 1066 the monasteries of Normandy were still concentrated in the central area of the duchy.
Even so, the scope of the aristocratic endowment of Norman monasticism between 1035 and 1066 remains so astonishing that it is necessary to consider the motives which inspired it. It would of course be rash to consider these transactions simply as benefactions, or the endowments themselves as simply gifts. In the eleventh century was beginning the movement which was in due course to make the monasteries of western Europe depots of credit for secular lords, and certainly the greater Norman monasteries, such as Fécamp under Abbot John, played their full part, during the latter half of that century, in the development of a money economy in the duchy.41 Even before 1066 many of the new Norman nobility were beginning to use the monasteries of the duchy as agents whereby they could make available some of their recently acquired landed wealth as expendable cash, and the endowment of a monastery with estates in return for an annual payment to be made to the ‘donor’ was one of the means by which this could be effected. Nor should it be forgotten that the establishment of a monastery might provide a means for increasing the wealth of a great estate, and it is not without significance that many of the Norman foundations were situated in proximity to land ready for new colonization or exploitation.42
Yet whilst the part played by the Norman aristocracy in promoting the monastic life of the duchy is certainly in some measure thus to be explained, it can hardly be attributed solely to economic causes. More complex motives are also to be discerned. In an age when prestige counted for much, something may have been due to rivalry in this matter between the greater families as was apparently the case at Saint-Évroul between the houses of Montgomery and Grandmesnil.43 Reputations thus questionably coveted could also be disreputably enhanced. It is certain, for instance, that in many cases the new foundations were enriched by lands which had been illegitimately taken from the older monasteries of Normandy. Thus both Troarn and Almenèches received from the house of Montgomery estates which had formerly belonged to Fécamp,44 and Ralph Tesson endowed his own abbey of Fontenay with some lands which had previously been given by the Duchess Judith to Bernay.45 All this is true. But the eleventh-century mind is not to be interpreted by indiscriminate cynicism any more than it is to be judged in terms of credulous sentimentality; and it is perhaps permissible in this connexion to recall how many of these ruthless men retired to end their lives in the abbeys which they had enriched.46
There was at any rate one monastery founded at this time in Normandy whose establishment might reasonably be cited as illustrating the influence of private spirituality on secular history.47 About 1035 a certain knight of Count Gilbert of Brionne, named Herluin, being moved by an impulse towards the religious life, sought to satisfy his desire first as a lay-brother, and then as a monk, in one of the existing monasteries of the province. This was without success, and so, with two followers, he retired to one of his estates at Bonneville near the Risle, where he was joined by a few more men of like mind, and in 1039 the little company moved to Le Bec-Hellouin, where they began a community life of great simplicity and where their church was consecrated by Archbishop Mauger on 23 February 1041.48 There was, as will be seen, no desire to inaugurate a monastic movement, or to acquire wealth, prestige, or external influence. Yet such was the origin of what was soon to be for a period the most famous monastery of western Europe, sending its members to preside over bishoprics and abbeys, and imparting its culture of mind and spirit to a large area of western Christendom.
The rapid rise of Le Bec to fame may be dated from the entry into this little community of one whose career was to be part of Anglo-Norman history. When Lanfranc entered Le Bec, about 1042, he was already some thirty-five years of age and had won fame as a teacher in North Italy and at Avranches. For three years he obtained on the banks of the Risle the obscurity for which he craved, but his genius was not to be suppressed, and in due course he became prior under Herluin and resumed his teaching. Pupils thus began to come to Le Bec from all parts, and the fame of Le Bec grew. It was in fact already celebrated as a house of studies when about 1060 another man, even more remarkable, entered its walls. This was Anselm, the future archbishop of Canterbury. The consummation was thus rapidly achieved. The prayers of Herluin, the genius of Lanfranc, the sanctity of Anselm, together with the outstanding religious life of their companions, produced at length an influence that was worthy of their endeavour. Le Bec, ‘in a little over a quarter of a century from being an wholly obscure venture which was in a sense a reaction from the monasticism around it, came to rival and surpass its neighbours in their most typical activities, and to be the model and the mistress of Norman monasticism’.49
A monastery which between 1058 and 1063 had within its walls ‘two of the most powerful intelligences and more than two of the most saintly men of a great formative epoch’50 inevitably stands apart in respect of its individual pre-eminence. It would, however, be wrong to dissociate its achievement too sharply from the general monastic growth of the Norman province at this time. During these years not only did the Norman monasteries multiply, but they were established in close relation to the great reforming movement which was beginning to sweep over north-western Europe, and they were linked together by their progressive acceptance of the Cluniac discipline. William of Dijon had introduced the reforms at Fécamp and Bernay, whilst his disciples performed the same task at Jumièges, Le Mont-Saint-Michel, and Saint-Ouen; and from these houses the new discipline was rapidly to spread by stages throughout the new foundations.51 Thus Fécamp gave the first abbots to the Tosny foundation at Conches, and the Montgomery house at Troarn. Le Mont-Saint-Michel supplied an abbot and monks to the monastery of Saint-Vigor at Bayeux. In like manner, Jumièges gave the first abbot to the Grandmesnil foundations at Saint-Évroul, and this latter monastery supplied several of the early abbots of William fitz Osbern's foundation at Lire. But the houses established by the Norman nobility at this time probably owed most in this respect to Saint-Ouen. The first five abbots of Holy Trinity, Rouen, came from this abbey, and Holy Trinity passed on the succession by supplying the first abbots not only of the count of Eu's foundations at Le Tréport and Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives, but also of William fitz Osbern's monastery at Cormeilles. Cerisy-la-Forêt, likewise, took its first superior from Saint-Ouen. And from Saint-Ouen too came the first abbots of the reformed house of La Croix-Saint-Leuffroi, of Roger of Mortemer's abbey of Saint-Victor-en-Caux, and of Robert Bertram's foundation at Beaumont-en-Auge.
Most of the monasteries established in Normandy before 1066 have been mentioned in this summary list, and among the omissions are some which are themselves very significant. Le Bec, as has been seen, was the result of an indigenous movement, which, whilst representing a highly distinguished form of monastic life, was in many ways unique. Nevertheless, despite its individuality, it came to conform in many respects to the prevailing pattern and handed on its own discipline directly to the abbey of Lessay, and later to the ducal foundation of Saint-Stephen's, Caen.52 Again, at Saint-Wandrille there probably survived traditions from the earlier movement in Flanders, and these may have been in some sense handed on to the Beaumont foundation at Préaux, to Herluin's house at Grestain, and perhaps also to Ralph Tesson's house at Fontenay.53 But even here the exception is in part illusory, for there seems no doubt that Saint-Wandrille was itself reformed from Fécamp about 1063.54 In general, therefore (with the exception of Le Bec), the Norman monasteries before the Norman conquest can be regarded as a closely confederated group with observance in the main deriving from Cluny. Founded either by the ducal dynasty, or by the rival members of a highly competitive aristocracy, they yet, through their connexions with one another, came to serve as a cohesive force within Normandy. They thus contributed not only to the ecclesiastical character but also to the political unity of the duchy ruled by Duke William.
So outstanding was the monastic development of Normandy during the reign of Duke William that it is easy to forget that this, though the chief, was not the sole factor in promoting the ecclesiastical revival which was to condition the impact of Normandy on Europe in his time. It is proper to contrast the fine spirituality exhibited, for example, by Richard of Saint-Vannes, or in the monastery of Le Bec, with the mundane interests of the contemporary secular church, and it is very true that the reform of the Norman church was primarily monastic rather than episcopal in its essence. Yet the Norman bishops between 1035 and 1066 formed a group of prelates which was in many ways remarkable.55 They were, it is true, out of touch with the reforming ideals which were radiating from Cluny and its offshoots, and their conception of the episcopal office had little in common with that envisaged by later reformers. They therefore attracted censure which in many cases their private lives did much to justify. None the less they were never negligible, and much of what they wrought endured.
If, however, the ecclesiastical development of Normandy between 1035 and 1066 owed something to the bishops who then held office within the province of Rouen, the contrast between these men and those responsible for the monastic reforms none the less remains striking. Though precision as to dating is hard to obtain, the episcopal succession in Normandy between 1035 and 1066 is well established, and the bare recital of the names which it involves reveals the cardinal fact that the Norman episcopacy during the reign of Duke William is overwhelmingly representative of the new secular aristocracy which was then being established in the duchy, and which was itself closely connected with the ducal dynasty. The see of Rouen before 1055 was held by two sons of Norman dukes, namely Robert and Mauger. The bishopric of Bayeux was occupied first by Hugh, son of Count Rodulf, half-brother to Duke Richard I, and then after 1049–1050 by Odo, half-brother of Duke William himself. John, who became bishop of Avranches in 1060, and subsequently archbishop of Rouen, was another of Count Rodulf's sons, and Hugh who was made bishop of Lisieux in 1049–1050 was the son of William, count of Eu, and grandson of Duke Richard I. Geoffrey, who became bishop of Coutances in 1049, was a Mowbray, and Yves, bishop of Sées throughout this period, was head of the great family of Bellême. Again, William, son of Gérard Flaitel, who was made bishop of Évreux some time after 1040, was the relative and probably the first cousin of Radbod, a former bishop of Sées; and one of Radbod's sons was William who became archbishop of Rouen in 1079. Such facts deserve close consideration. They indicate unmistakably that the Norman episcopate, during the reign of Duke William, was dominated by a small close-knit aristocratic group whose principal filiations could be displayed within the scope of two very restricted and connected pedigree sketches.
Such men were often hardly to be distinguished as to character and policy from their lay kinsfolk, and many of them had children by unions which were recognized, if not regular.56 Owing their appointment to their dynastic connexions they were naturally concerned to further the fortunes of the families to which they belonged, and as members of the new aristocracy in Normandy they were deeply committed to the maintenance of that nobility in power. As a result the establishment of great lords in ecclesiastical office led naturally to such a situation as was created when Archbishop Robert of Rouen became also count of Évreux, or when Yves added the bishopric of Sées to his secular inheritance of Bellême. It was by a logical extension of these ideas that Odo, bishop of Bayeux, was later to become earl of Kent, and both he and Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, acquired, as individuals rather than as bishops, lands in England which in their extent and wealth could be compared with the very greatest of the temporal baronies constituted by the Norman conquest. Such conditions, unedifying in themselves, were particularly shocking to commentators writing in the time of St Anselm who were convinced that the root of evil in the church was the mingling of sacred and secular things, and it is little wonder that, especially by comparison with the monastic reformers, the Norman bishops before the Norman conquest should have been branded with an evil reputation by posterity.
Nevertheless, it would perhaps be rash to indulge here in too sweeping a condemnation. There is doubtless little to be said in favour of Archbishop Robert as a prelate, but he was certainly a stabilizing force in the duchy, and Mauger, who was universally criticized, at least convoked, early in his pontificate, a synod at Rouen which vigorously denounced simony before the papacy had launched with Leo IX its great reforming campaign. Geoffrey of Coutances in his turn might be dismissed too readily as an able secular administrator who enriched himself out of the spoils of the Conquest, for his administration of his diocese was notable; he left a great cathedral for his memorial, and he is said to have combined his zeal for his bishopric with considerable personal austerity.57Even of Odo of Bayeux an adverse judgment might well admit modification. His overwhelming ambitions were a source of strife, his ruthless oppressions made him hated, and his private life was a source of scandal. Nevertheless, the see of Bayeux enjoyed great benefits from his rule, and his patronage was both lavish and well directed. Certainly a prelate whose political career affected the fortunes of both Normandy and England so signally cannot be dismissed as negligible, and perhaps the twelfth-century monk was just as well as charitable when he concluded that in this extraordinary man virtues and vices were strangely mingled.58 Finally, with Hugh of Lisieux and John of Avranches we come upon prelates who were personally distinguished and of high repute. There is little doubt that the former deserved the attractive eulogy pronounced upon him by William of Poitiers, who knew him well.59 And as for John of Avranches, his abilities were later to be fully displayed as archbishop of Rouen, and when he was still bishop of Avranches he won for himself by his writings an assured place in the history of the liturgy of the western church.
These prelates all belonged, however, to an older ecclesiastical tradition which was attacked and condemned by the reformers of the succeeding generation, and only one occupant of a Norman see before the Conquest can be said to have conformed to later notions of episcopacy. This was Maurilius who in exceptional circumstances became archbishop of Rouen in May 1055 after the deposition of Mauger. Maurilius60 was not a Norman, nor was he connected with the Norman aristocracy. Born about 1000 in the neighbourhood of Rheims, he had received his training at Liége, and later been scholasticus in the chapter of Halberstadt. He then became a monk at Fécamp, whence he migrated to live a hermit's life at Vallombrosa. From there he was called to become abbot of the Benedictine house of Saint Mary of Florence, but the rigour of his rule inspired a revolt among the monks, and he returned once more to Fécamp. And it was from Fécamp that he was brought in 1054–1055 to undertake the duties of the metropolitan archbishop of Normandy. His remarkable career had thus been passed in the most vital centres of European intellectual and spiritual life; he had experienced the learning of Liége, the spiritual fervour of Vallombrosa, the Cluniac monasticism of William of Dijon. Even so, his advancement to the archbishopric was surprising. A new and extraneous element was thus introduced into the secular hierarchy of the province of Rouen, and the personal influence of such a man with such experience must have been very great.
Nevertheless, the individual contribution made by Maurilius to the ecclesiastical development of Normandy might be exaggerated. It was the duke who was chiefly responsible for his appointment, and throughout his pontificate the duke was to exercise an ever-increasing power over the Norman church. In 1055 William had just surmounted the great crisis of his Norman reign, and it was perhaps owing to him as much as to the ageing archbishop that during the decade preceding the Norman conquest there was a further quickening in the ecclesiastical life of the province. The duke may even have appreciated the contrast between the influence on the Norman episcopate and that of the Norman monasteries, and conscious that each had much to contribute to the welfare of his duchy, he may have sought to harmonize them by the advancement of a distinguished monk to the archiepiscopal see. Certainly, he was fortunate in having as archbishop during these years a man whose saintly character inspired widespread respect. None the less it would be unwise to distinguish what occurred in the ecclesiastical life of Normandy after 1055 from what had been accomplished before.61 The monastic revival took on increased momentum, but the original impetus was still the same, and among the bishops of Normandy Maurilius was always an exceptional figure. The achievements of these bishops between 1035 and 1066 must thus be considered as a whole (with no break at 1054), and as the work under the duke of an episcopal group which, with the single exception of Maurilius, was made up of selected members of the newly established aristocracy of Normandy.
Called upon to administer a recently disorganized church in a province which long remained subject to disorder, these prelates displayed in full measure the vigour of their class, and though many of them were lamentably lacking in spirituality they affected a notable reconstruction. Many of them, notably Hugh of Lisieux, John of Avranches, Geoffrey of Coutances, and Odo of Bayeux, were praised for the benefits they conferred on their sees, and if such eulogy might of itself be considered suspect, it could be supported by more precise testimony. In 1035 the bishoprics of the province of Rouen still felt the effects of earlier disintegration, and even in 1050 they remained in need of further rehabilitation. The well-organized bishoprics characteristic of medieval Normandy may thus be contrasted sharply with those in existence in 1035, and much of the transformation was the work of the bishops who presided over the Norman church during the reign of Duke William.
Their work in this respect can be suitably assessed in the first instance by reference to the archidiaconate in Normandy,62 for the archdeacon was an essential agent in the ordered administration of any medieval bishopric. The Norman archdeaconries of the thirteenth century, together with the rural deaneries into which they were then divided, are well known, and a long series of twelfth-century instruments testifies to the earlier prevalence of archdeaconries and to the activities of their holders. Further, this chain of testimony can be stretched into the eleventh century itself. The archidiaconate as an office was fully recognized in the provincial council summoned by Mauger about 1040, and evidence exists relative to its institution at Rouen, at Coutances, and at Lisieux. More precisely the four archdeacons who witnessed a notable charter of Odo, bishop of Bayeux,63 can reasonably be held to represent the four archdeaconries which were later attached to that church, whilst the five territorial archdeaconries later established in the diocese of Sées must likewise have been represented in the five named archdeacons who between 1040 and 1065 ratified a gift by Bishop Yves to the abbey of Saint-Vincent du Mans.64 By contrast, apart from the two archdeacons, presumably of Rouen, who attested a charter of Archbishop Robert for Chartres in 1024,65 it might be hard to find a reference to a particular archdeacon in Normandy before the time of Duke William. The office would seem to have been re-established in the duchy by the bishops who presided over the Norman sees in his time.
The archdeacon was, however, only one of the dignitaries normally attached to a cathedral church, for a secular cathedral in the Middle Ages was distinguished by the character and composition of its chapter. The Norman cathedral chapters were fully established in the thirteenth century, and in many respects they can be traced back through the twelfth and even into the latter part of the eleventh century.66 For Sées and Avranches early evidence is lacking, but there is definite testimony that the very peculiar chapter of Coutances took its origin with Bishop Geoffrey. The first reference to the decanal office at Évreux comes from the last quarter of the eleventh century, and there seems little doubt that the bulk of the chapter of Lisieux was set up in the time of Bishop Hugh. At Bayeux the chapter is cited in a charter of Bishop Odo,67 and most of the dignitaries who later composed it are mentioned by name in the instrument. Finally, though the titles of the officials concerned were in due course to be somewhat varied, there is no doubt that the chapter of the metropolitan cathedral of Rouen was in all essentials fully reconstituted during the Norman reign of Duke William.68 Doubtless, here as elsewhere in Normandy, the conquest of England stimulated the process, for a chapter needed money for its upkeep, and some of these prelates, notably Geoffrey of Coutances and Odo of Bayeux, devoted to this purpose revenues that they had derived from England. But the essential work had been done during the preceding decades, and there seems no doubt that the highly individual chapters of the Norman cathedrals began to take shape under the bishops who were appointed to the Norman sees between 1035 and 1066.
Such an achievement was of importance to the growth of the Norman church, and whilst the work of these bishops needed the correction which the monastic reformers could supply, the two activities should not be considered as if they were in opposition the one to the other. It is true that shortly before the advent of Duke William certain of the Norman monasteries had succeeded in asserting, ‘according to the privileges of Cluny’, an exemption from episcopal jurisdiction: the right, in theory, to elect their own abbots, and sometimes the distinct privilege of collecting the episcopal dues from a specified number of ‘exempt’ churches.69 But it is doubtful how far such privileges were extended or enforced between 1035 and 1066, and when in 1061 an agreement was made after controversy between John, bishop of Avranches and the abbey of Le Mont-Saint-Michel, the compromise achieved was indicative of the superior judicial authority of the bishop.70 From the opposite point of view the bishops on their part can be seen as giving substantial support to the monastic movement. Maurilius, himself a monk, took the lead in this matter by standing as the friend of Saint-Ouen, Jumièges, Le Tréport, and Saint-Ymer;71 but he did not stand alone, and many of his episcopal colleagues added their own benefactions to those of their kinsfolk. William, bishop of Évreux, was a benefactor of the house of Saint-Taurin, whilst Hugh, bishop of Lisieux, joined his mother, the Countess Lesceline of Eu, in her grants to Holy Trinity, Rouen.72 In like manner Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, seems to have been concerned to sponsor a revival of monastic life in a distracted diocese, and the gifts of Odo, bishop of Bayeux, were not confined to his cathedral.73
The resuscitation of ecclesiastical life in the province of Rouen was in fact due to many agencies and was manifested in many ways. It was, for instance, reflected in an architectural revival which has attracted the admiring attention of critics.74 The earliest surviving eleventh-century church in Normandy is probably that of Bernay, and it was marked by many novel features. Moreover, the other great monastic churches which arose during these years conformed generally to the same plan which is found not only at Bernay but also at Le Mont-Saint-Michel, Holy Trinity, Rouen, and Saint-Taurin at Évreux; and again at Saint-Ouen, Montivilliers, Lire, Lessay, and Jumièges. Here, then, was a concerted movement which promoted a distinct architectural style, and which though not peculiar to Normandy has been held to have produced in the duchy what was structurally ‘ the most logical of the various schools of Romanesque’.75 Yet while ‘it was the monastic revival which gave the necessary impetus to the architectural revival in Normandy’76 at this time, the bishops of the province also made their own contribution to it. Recent excavations in the crypt of Rouen cathedral have thrown fresh light on the great church built by Maurilius,77 and traces can still be seen at Bayeux of the cathedral begun by Bishop Hugh, and completed with characteristic magnificence by Bishop Odo.78 A new cathedral is known to have been begun at Lisieux before 1049, and it was finished by Bishop Hugh and dedicated by him on 8 July 1060.79 Finally, at Coutances, Geoffrey left his own memorial in a great church whose structure still survives in parts of the present cathedral.80
Nor was it only in architecture that the ecclesiastical renaissance in Normandy at this time found expression. It was the same with learning and literature. The Cluniac discipline with its stress on formal worship, and with its multiplication of the hours of liturgical observance, was, as is well known, somewhat indifferent to the development of monastic scholarship and teaching. Its application to Normandy, however, was to entail different results. William of Dijon was himself a man of wide cultural interests who held that part of the monastic function was to study and to teach. As a consequence, intellectual and educational interests were to become strong at Fécamp from an early date. The schools at Fécamp established at this time have in particular attracted much attention.81 It has been held, for instance, that they were open not only to ecclesiastics but to lay-folk, and it would seem that free lodging was provided for some of the students. Perhaps there has here been some exaggeration, and certainly the Fécamp schools were not unique in Normandy for they had their counterparts, as it would seem, at Saint-Ouen and Holy Trinity, at Le Mont-Saint-Michel, and perhaps at Jumièges and Saint-Évroul.82 Their main function seems to have been to train monks for the cloister, but the educational activity prosecuted in Normandy before the Norman conquest was undoubtedly notable.
The scholarly interests of Fécamp, as established in the time of William of Dijon, and the influence it exercised on those other Norman houses to which it sent superiors reached its climax in the work of a writer of the first importance. John (or Johanellinus), abbot of Fécamp from 1031 to 1079, was one of the makers of Norman monasticism.83 A Lombard, like Lanfranc he came to Normandy early in the eleventh century, and throughout his long life he was prominent in the affairs of the duchy. But it was in the sphere of learning, and more particularly of devotional literature, that his finest work was done.84 His surviving letters are of interest, and he was apparently versed in the medical knowledge of the day. It was, however, through other productions that he was to establish himself as a ‘spiritual guide and writer unique among his contemporaries’. So notable and so influential were his devotional treatises that paradoxically their very excellence was for long to contribute to their author's anonymity. One of his treatises was, for instance, attributed to St Augustine, and when another was published in 1539 it was assigned to John Cassian. None the less his work has endured. The moving and beautiful prayers in preparation for Mass which have found their place in the Missale Romanum85 (where they are attributed to St Ambrose) were, in fact, written by this eleventh-century abbot of Fécamp whose pervasive inspiration thus continues today.
In surveying the intellectual revival associated with the ecclesiastical development of Normandy before the Norman conquest, it is inevitable that attention should be turned chiefly towards Le Bec. The schools of Le Bec were not in their origin essentially different from those established at Fécamp and elsewhere, but they advanced to a unique distinction under the direction of Lanfranc, who began to teach there in 1045 or 1046, and who raised the new abbey on the banks of the Risle to the status of a centre of European education. The political achievements of Lanfranc relate chiefly to the period after 1066, but his greatest work in scholarship and teaching was done when he was a monk at Le Bec, for it was then that he made his widely read Biblical and patristic commentaries, and compiled his treatise against Berengar, the importance of which in the development of medieval theology has recently been emphasized.86 His prestige as a teacher was moreover immense, and he numbered among his pupils an astonishingly large number of men who were subsequently to attain to high positions. Among them, for instance, might be mentioned William ‘ Bonne-Ame’, later archbishop of Rouen, three abbots of Rochester, Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster, and a large group of abbots in England and France.87 Such a list (which is by no means exhaustive) may occasion surprise. It is certainly sufficient to testify to the intellectual influence of Le Bec before the Norman conquest, even if it be not added that among Lanfranc's pupils was Anselm himself, who became a monk at Le Bec in 1060, and who was soon to win for himself a permanent place as a doctor of the Church.
Le Bec at its zenith stands distinct. But its brilliance must, none the less, be taken into account in any assessment of the ecclesiastical revival in the Norman land wherein it grew. Nor should its brilliance be allowed to obscure the work which at the same time was being done in other Norman monasteries. The picture of Saint-Évroul before the Norman conquest painted in the twelfth century by Ordericus Vitalis is doubtless at times distorted by enthusiasm; but it is none the less substantially authentic, and the obvious sympathy between this writer and his abbey makes it legitimate to consider his own great book, perhaps the most brilliant historical work produced in Normandy or England in his time, as at once a description and a reflection of the intellectual interests prevailing in the more favoured monasteries of Normandy in the middle of the eleventh century. Nor did Saint-Évroul stand alone. Its library, for example, if respectable, was not outstanding, and it had its counterparts in other monasteries such as Fécamp, Lire, and doubtless other places.88 The list of scholar monks who achieved at least a temporary fame in Normandy before the Conquest is not negligible, and there seems to have been a definite policy to place these in positions of responsibility. Thus (to select but a few names) Thierry was known as a scholar at Jumièges before he became the first abbot of Saint-Évroul, and Isembard, the first abbot of Holy Trinity, Rouen, had been praised for his earlier eminence in liberal studies when at Saint-Ouen.89 Again, Durand, first abbot of Troarn, who at Saint-Ouen had been Isembard's pupil, was justly described as ‘learned’; and Ainard, the first abbot of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives, was known as a teacher of music who also composed widely read verses in honour of Saint Catherine.90Gerbert, abbot of Saint-Wandrille, could actually be compared to Lanfranc as a scholar,91 and though this was a fantastic overestimate, modern students of history have had abundant reason to be grateful for the sober and interesting chronicle written by William of Jumièges while a monk at that house.
It was not to be expected that the Norman bishops of this time, immersed as they were in practical affairs, should personally participate in this literary activity. But they cannot be dissociated from it, and two of them made an individual contribution thereto. Maurilius of Rouen was with justice reputed for his erudition, and as for John of Avranches, his De Officiis Ecclesiasticis has been widely recognized by modern commentators for its importance in the development of the liturgy of the western church.92Maurilius and John, of course, stood apart, in this matter, from their episcopal colleagues, but their fellow bishops in Normandy were by no means indifferent to the development of letters, and many of them discharged with high distinction the duties of patronage.93 Most notable in this respect were, for instance, Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, and Odo, bishop of Bayeux. Geoffrey's princely munificence became indeed something of a legend in medieval Normandy, and though many of his benefactions were made after 1066 out of the spoils of conquest, it is specifically stated that most of them took place at an earlier date.94 Nor can there be any doubt that many of these were directed towards fostering scholarship and the arts, for he is stated to have provided his church with numerous service books, many of which were decorated by the best manuscript workers of the time; and among the earlier gifts to Coutances were beautiful altar vessels of gold and silver, and richly wrought vestments. Due allowance must, of course, be made for exaggeration, but there can be little question that during the fifteen years which elapsed between 1049 and 1066 Geoffrey of Coutances laboured constructively to transform an enfeebled Church in a demoralized diocese into a cathedral worthy of an imperial duchy.95
The patronage of Odo, bishop of Bayeux, was even more notable, and it is attested with greater particularity. His munificent encouragement of craftsmanship may be illustrated in his enrichment of the fabric and ornaments of his cathedral, and there is little doubt that he was largely responsible for the development of the cathedral school at Bayeux.96 Moreover, at a later date, the Bayeux Tapestry itself most probably took its origin from his initiative,97 and it has even been suggested, though with less probability, that his patronage may have contributed to the production of the Chanson de Roland in the earliest complete form now known to us.98 Be that as it may, Odo of Bayeux was clearly in touch with neighbouring prelates of intellectual eminence such as Marbod of Rennes, and perhaps Hildebert of Tours, and it was in connexion with his patronage of young scholars that his activities were most notable. It was, for instance, his practice to send promising young clerics from his diocese at his own expense to study in the centres of European scholarship, and more particularly at Liége;99 and many of the men he selected as fitting recipients of his support were afterwards to win for themselves high rank in the Anglo-Norman church. Thus, among the scholars who were sustained by Odo at Liége was Thurstan, later to be an unfortunate abbot of Glastonbury, and William of Rots, subsequently dean at Bayeux and abbot of Fécamp.100 The most remarkable results of this enlightened patronage could, however, be discerned in connexion with two young clerics named Thomas and Samson, sons of a certain Osbert and Muriel of whom little further is known.101 Both of these youths were sent to Liége by their bishop, and their subsequent careers were spectacular. Thomas became in due course treasurer of Bayeux, and then, from 1070 to 1100, archbishop of York, whilst Samson, who was likewise for a time treasurer at Bayeux, was bishop of Worcester from 1096 to 1115.102 Whatever judgment may be passed on the political activities of Odo, bishop of Bayeux, he must certainly be reckoned as one of the great patrons of the age.
There is no mistaking the vigour of the intellectual life which was beginning to develop in the Norman church, and particularly in the Norman monasteries during the period immediately preceding the Norman conquest of England. Even if the outstanding achievement of Le Bec were to be regarded as exceptional, the range of these activities would remain impressive. It extended from the writing of history to theological controversy, from medicine to devotional literature, from verse-making to the cultivation of music in which the Norman monasteries of the eleventh century seem to have excelled.103 It is true, of course, that many of the most distinguished exponents of the monastic life in Normandy at this time were drawn from elsewhere – particularly from North Italy and the Rhineland.104 But the mere fact that such men chose the Viking province for their home and were welcomed therein is itself a matter of large significance. It must be taken into account alongside the native endeavour. It was the counterpart of the patronage of scholarship by Norman bishops and the lavish endowment of Norman monasteries by the Norman aristocracy. Strong in the aspirations of a brightening renaissance not peculiar to itself, the Norman church of this age was already beginning to impart by its very vigour something of its own to the intellectual revival which was to be characteristic of twelfth-century Europe.
The vitality of the Norman church at this time, and its unity, could not be better illustrated than in the councils which were held in the province of Rouen during these decades. Thus while no texts have survived to record any meeting of an ecclesiastical council in Normandy during the tenth century, there can be no question that there was considerable conciliar activity in the duchy during the Norman reign of Duke William. The bishops of that period were wont to summon diocesan synods with some regularity, and numerous councils of the whole province were also held.105 It is true that a record of their acts has only been preserved in a few cases, and that it is often difficult to assign precise dates for their meetings. But the evidence here is none the less remarkable. Thus, early in his pontificate, and certainly before 1048, Mauger convoked a provincial council in Rouen whose acts are extant, and it was at an ecclesiastical assemblage held outside Caen in October 1047 that the Truce of God was proclaimed. In 1054 or 1055 a provincial council at Lisieux ratified the deposition of Mauger, and it is probable that either in 1055 or at some date between 1055 and 1063 Maurilius held a council at Rouen.106 More certainly on 1 October 1063, Maurilius held a provincial council at Rouen,107 and in 1064 there met another provincial council at Lisieux whose acts have survived,108 whilst a synod was held at Caen in July 1066 on the occasion of the dedication of the abbey of Holy Trinity.109
Our knowledge of these assemblies depends upon the chance survival of particular texts, but the testimony is at all events sufficient to indicate the scope of this activity and its character. The proceedings at these councils conforms to the general pattern of the reforming legislation in the western church at this time, and offers a fresh indication of the manner in which these reforms were starting to pervade the Viking duchy. The first council of Mauger, for instance, denounced simony, and in the councils that were held in the time of Maurilius, legislation was consistently passed respecting clerical celibacy, the conduct of parish clergy, and the controversial aspects of the teaching of Berengar.110 None the less, the Norman councils of this period had their own special features. It is, for example, surely remarkable that some years before, in 1049, Leo IX introduced his reforms at the council of Rheims, a Norman council summoned by Mauger, an archbishop of.no high repute, should have legislated against the traffic in ecclesiastical offices, and should have taken measures designed to provide the province of Rouen with an instructed clergy.111 There seems here to have been a continuity of policy between Mauger and Maurilius, and the acts of those councils held in the time of the latter archbishop were related both to earlier and to later legislation.112 The ecclesiastical policy of William the Conqueror between 1066 and 1087, which entailed such important results for England and for western Europe, was in fact to flow easily out of the ecclesiastical legislation which took place in the Norman Church during his reign as duke.
For there can be no doubt that before 1066 the duke himself took a prominent part in the conciliar activity which took place in his duchy. He was perhaps too young to be at the first council of Mauger, but he was at the council at Caen in 1047, and it would seem that he was present, along with the papal legate, at the council of Lisieux in 1054–1055, and again at the council at Rouen in 1063. The important council of Lisieux of 1064 was in its turn held ‘under William the most noble duke of the Normans’.113 In the light of this testimony, there would thus seem no reason to question the emphatic assertion of William of Poitiers that the Norman ecclesiastical councils of this period met ‘at the command and with the encouragement of the duke’. William, it was said, was careful to attend their meetings and to be the ‘arbiter’ of their proceedings. He was, it is added, always unwilling to learn at secondhand about matters which he held to be of such importance to the welfare of his duchy.114
Before 1066 his concern had indeed been amply rewarded. The Norman church during his reign had so waxed in strength as to win widespread admiration of contemporaries for its vigour, its aspirations, and its intellectual life. The men, so diverse in character and yet so personally outstanding, who had risen to eminence within it were themselves sufficient to give it distinction. An ecclesiastical province of no abnormal size which at the beginning of 1066 could be represented by men of such contrasted distinction as Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey of Coutances, Maurilius of Rouen, John of Avranches, and Hugh of Lisieux, Lanfranc of Saint-Stephen's, John of Fécamp, Herluin of Le Bec, and the young Anselm was assuredly not to be ignored. It is not surprising, therefore, that its subsequent influence was to be pervasive. The Norman ecclesiastical revival had in short been made in its turn to subserve the developing strength of Normandy under the rule of Duke William.
1 R.A.D.N., no. 4.
2 Jumièges, Le Mont-Saint-Michel, Saint-Wandrille, Saint-Ouen.
3 Cerisy, Montivilliers, Holy Trinity, Rouen, and Saint-Amand. Fécamp had been reconstituted in 1001, and Bernay established about 1026.
4 Prentout, Étude sur Dudon, p. 300; Inventio S. Wulframni (Soc. Hist. Norm., Mélanges, vol. XIV (1938), pp. 1–83).
5 Douglas, in Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LVII (1942), p. 433.
6 Lair, Guillaume Longue-Epée (1893); Hist. de Jumièges (ed. Loth), vol. I, pp. 122–126.
7 Will. Jum., p. 38; Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 8; Robert of Torigny (ed. Delisle), vol. II, p. 192.
8 Inventio S. Wulframni (op. cit., p. 32); Lot, Saint-Wandrille, pp. xl–xlv.
9 Rec. Actes de Lothair et de Louis V (ed. Halphen), no. XXIV.
10 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, col. 513; J. Huynes, Hist. – du Mont-St-Michel (ed. Beaurepaire), vol. I, pp. 149–151.
11 He died 16 April, 991 )Rec. Hist. Franc., vol. XXIII, p. 579).
12 Knowles, Monastic Order, pp. 83, 89.
13 Liber de Revelatione (Pat. Lat., vol. CLI, col. 699); Leroux de Lincy, Essai – sur Fécamp (1840), pp. 5–9.
14 Knowles, op. cit., p. 85.
15 For what follows, see Watkin Williams in Downside Review, vol. LII, pp. 520–534.
16 Robert of Torigny (ed. Delisle), vol. I, p. 193.
17 Le Prévost, Eure, vol. I, p. 285; A. Goujou, Histoire de Bernay, chap. II.
18 Mon. Ang., vol. VI, p. 1073; R.A.D.N., no. 61.
19 Le Cacheux, Saint Amand, chap. I; the ‘foundation charter’ (p. 242) is, however, a forgery.
20 H. Dauphin, Le Bienheureux Richard (1946), pp. 260–264.
21 Le Musset, ‘Les destins de la propriété monastique’ (Jumièges – XIIIe Centenaire, pp. 49–55).
22 Lot, Saint-Wandrille, pp. xiii–xxviii; Musset, op. cit., p. 50.
23 R.A.D.N., nos. 14 bis, 26.
24 Musset, op. cit., p. 50.
25 R.A.D.N., no. 61.
26 R. Fawtier, ‘Les Reliques rouennaises de Sainte Catherine d'Alexandrie’ (Analecta Bollandiana, vol. XLI (1923), pp. 357–368). M. Fawtier shows that Hugh of Flavigny's story of the relics, and of the foundation, is not to be relied upon.
27 M. J. Le Cacheux, op. cit., chap. I.
28 Above, pp. 80–91.
29 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 12.
30 The De Immuatatione Ordinis Monachorum is printed in the edition of the works of Robert of Torigny by L. Delisle (vol. II, pp. 184–207). The tract is, on the whole, more accurate than the individual notices supplied by the author in his other writings.
31 Robert of Torigny (op. cit., vol. II, pp. 197, 199); Gall. Christ., vol. XI; Instrumenta, cols. 199–203; Douglas, in French Studies, vol. XIV (1960), pp. 110, 111.
32 Robert of Torigny (op. cit., vol. II, pp. 200, 201); Gall. Christ., vol. XI; Instrumenta, cols. 153–157.
33 Robert of Torigny (op. cit., vol. II, pp. 202, 203); Cart. – Fontenay le Marmion, ed. L. Saige (Monaco, 1895), p. xviii.
34 Robert of Torigny, op. cit., vol. II, p. 198; Guéry, Hist. – de Lire (1917), chap. I. The foundation charter (pp. 563–567) is grievously inflated.
35 Robert of Torigny (op. cit., vol. II, pp. 201, 202); Gall. Christ.; Instrumenta, cols. 13,224–228.
36 Robert of Torigny (op. cit., vol. II, pp. 199, 200); R. N. Sauvage, Saint-Martin-de-Troarn (1911). pp. 3–31.
37 Complete Peerage, vol. XII, pp. 756, 759.
38 R.A.D.N., nos. 92, 129; Lot, Saint-Wandrille, no. 41.
39 R.A.D.N., nos. 118, 182.
40 Chevreux et Vernier, Archives de Normandie, plate V; L. Musset, ‘Actes Inédites’ (Bull. Soc. Antiq. Norm. (1954), pp. 8–10).
41 Cf. R. Génestal, ‘Du Rôle des monastères comme établissements de crédit’ (1901).
42 J. Sion, Paysans de Normandie (1909), p. 131.
43 Ord. Vit., vol. II, pp. 20–60.
44 R.A.D.N., no. 34.
45 Gifts by Ralph I and Ralph II of Tesson to Fontenay include estates in the Cinglais at Thury, Essay, and Fresnay-le-Vieux which figure in the dotalicium of Judith (R.A.D.N., no. 11), but there is no proof that these went with Judith's other lands to Bernay. On these estates, see also Vaultier in Soc. Antiq. Norm., Mémoires, vol. X (1837).
46 Thus Goscelin, vicomte of Rouen, became a monk of Holy Trinity, and his wife entered Saint-Amand. The Countess Lesceline of Eu entered religion, while both Humphrey of Vieilles and his son Roger of Beaumont passed their last days at Saint-Peter, Préaux (Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 728, 729; Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 163; vol. III, pp. 33, 426). Many other examples could be given but these will suffice to point the conclusion.
47 Of the voluminous literature on the origins of Le Bec, there may be cited: A. Porée, L'abbaye du Bec (1901); J. A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin (1911); M. D. Knowles, Monastic Order (1940), pp. 88–91.
48 Porée, op. cit., vol. I, p. 43.
49 Knowles, op. cit., p. 92.
50 Ibid., p. 89.
51 Robert of Torigny, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 184–206.
52 Ibid., vol. II, p. 202. The first four abbots of Lessay came from Le Bec, and the fifth from Saint-Stephen's, Caen, where Lanfranc was abbot.
53 Robert of Torigny, op. cit., pp. 199, 202.
54 Will. Poit., p. 134.
55 Douglas, ‘The Norman Episcopate before the Norman Conquest’ (Cambridge Historical Journal, vol. XII (1957), pp. 101–116).
56 Richard, son of Archbishop Robert, was count of Évreux, and a son of Odo of Bayeux was a familiar figure at the court of King Henry I of England.
57 Le Patourel, Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LIX (1944), pp. 129 et sqq.
58 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 222; vol. III, pp. 263, 264.
59 Will. Poit., pp. 136–142.
60 The chief authority for Maurilius is the Acta Archiepiscoporum Rothomagensium. Vacandard showed that the section relating to Maurilius is a nearly contemporary text, whereas subsequent sections were added somewhat later by a monk of Saint-Ouen (Rev. catholique de Normandie, vol. III (1893), p. 117).
61 As will be seen later, there was a continuity of conciliar practice between Mauger and Maurilius.
62 For what follows, see Douglas, op. cit., pp. 108–110.
63 Cart. Bayeux, no. XXII.
64 Cart. S. Vincent du Mans, no. 545.
65 Cart. S. Père Chartres, p. 116.
66 For details, see Douglas, op. cit., pp. 110–114.
67 Cart. Bayeux, no. XXII.
68 Douglas, op. cit., p. 109.
69 J.-F. Lemarignier, Privilèges d'Exemption, esp. pp. 44–84.
70 Ibid., p. 152; E. A. Pigéon, Diocèse d'Avranches, pp. 658–660.
71 R.A.D.N., no. 213; Le Prévost, Eure, vol. I, p. 152; vol. II, p. 32; Cart. S. Michel du Tréport (ed. Laffleur de Kermingant), pp. i–xxxii; Cart. S. Ymer en Auge (ed. Bréard), no. I.
72 Gall. Christ., vol. XI; Instrumenta, col. 126; Cart. S. Trin. Roth., no. LXIX.
73 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 354, 870.
74 See A. W. Clapham, English Romanesque Architecture after the Conquest (1934), chap. I – on which what here follows is based.
75 Ibid., p. 8.
76 Ibid., p. 12.
77 G. Lanfry, La Cathédrale dans la Cité romane et en Normandie ducale (1957), pp. 20–46. Among earlier works on Rouen cathedral may be mentioned those of E. H. Langlois, who was not only a competent antiquarian but an exquisite draftsman (see P. Chirol, Étude sur E-H Langlois (1922)). A good account of the earlier erudition is given in A. Alinne and A. Loisel, La Cathédrale de Rouen avant l'incendie de 1100 (1904).
78 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, col. 353; Will. Poit., p. 240.
79 Will. Poit., p. 138; Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 308.
80 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, col. 219; E. A. Freeman, Sketches of Travel, pp. 80–83.
81 Watkin Williams, op. cit., p. 529; Knowles, op. cit., p. 490.
82 See Delisle in his great introduction to the edition of Ord. Vit.
83 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 206, 207.
84 A. Wilmart, Auteurs spirituels et textes devots du Moyen Age latin (1932), pp. 101–125.
85 In the Latin-English Missal published by Burns and Oates in 1949 these will be found on pp. 664–672. See also: J. Leclerc and J. P. Bonnes, Un mâitre de la vie spirituelle (1946).
86 R. W. Southern, in Essays – F. M. Powicke (1948), pp. 28–48.
87 Porée, L'abbaye du Bec, vol. I, pp. 103, 104.
88 Ord. Vit., introduction by Léopold Delisle. Cf. J. P. Martin, La bibliothèque d'Avranches; les manuscrits du Mont St Michel (1924).
89 Ord. Vit., vol. II, pp. 42, 95; Hist. Litt. de la France, vol. VII (1746), p. 70.
90 Ord. Vit., vol. II, pp. 29, 247, 292, 411.
91 Ibid., vol. III, p. 240.
92 R. Delamare, Le ‘De Officiis ecclesiasticis’ de Jean d'Avranches (1923); Southern, St. Anselm, pp. 41, 42.
93 They brought books from overseas. Archbishop Robert, for example, elicited from his sister Emma in England the gift of a magnificent liturgical work which passed eventually to the archbishop's son William and thence to William's wife, Hawise (Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 41). This is distinct from the so-called ‘Missal of Robert of Jumièges’ (Bradshaw Soc., vol. XI, 1896), which is recorded in a contemporary charter (Chartes de Jumièges, no. XXIII), and was perhaps given to Jumièges by Robert when bishop of London. See further on this: J. B. L. Tolhurst, in Archaeologia, vol. LXXXIII (1933), pp. 29–41.
94 Gall. Christ., vol. XI; Instrumenta, col. 220; Le Patourel, op. cit.
95 Cf. Toustain de Billy, Hist. de Coutances (ed. 1874), vol. I, p. 123.
96 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 353, 354.
97 E. Maclagan, The Bayeux Tapestry (1943), p. 27.
98 P. Andrieu-Guitrancourt, L'Empire normand et sa civilization (1952), pp. 386–391: ‘Le Turpin de la légende et Odon de Bayeux sont un même personnage.’ But see Douglas, in French Studies, vol. XIV (i960), p. 103.
99 Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 265.
100 Ord. Vit., vol. II, pp. 129, 244; vol. IV, pp. 269, 272.
101 C. T. Clay, Yorks. Arch. Journal, vol. XXXI (1945), pp. 1, 2.
102 Two of Samson's sons, Thomas and Richard, became respectively archbishop of York (1109–1119) and bishop of Bayeux (1108–1113).
103 Ord. Vit., vol. II, pp. 94–96, 247.
104 e.g. John of Fécamp and Lanfranc. From the Rhineland came, for instance, Isembard of Saint-Ouen, Ainard of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives, and Archbishop Maurilius.
105 The Ordo provincialis concilii celebrandi, which was inserted into the ‘Benedictional of Archbishop Robert’ (Bradshaw Soc., vol. XXIV (1903), p. 154) apparently in the latter half of the eleventh century, assumes that two provincial councils are held each year, and though this practice was probably not followed before the Norman conquest, the statement is significant. Bishop John of Avranches in 1061 claimed the right to hold two diocesan synods each year (E. A. Pigéon, Diocèse d'Avranches, pp. 658–660).
106 Bessin, Concilia, p. 47. It is possible, however, that this is the council which met in 1063.
107 Ibid., p. 49.
108 Edited by L. Delisle from a MS. in Trinity College, Cambridge, and printed in Journal des Savants (1901), pp. 516–521.
109 R.A.D.N., no. 231.
110 Bessin, Concilia, pp. 47, 49; Journal des Savants (1901), p. 517, cl. I, II, and III.
111 Bessin, Concilia, p. 41, canons VI and VIII.
112 Below, pp. 331–335.
113 Journal des Savants (1901), p. 517.
114 Will. Poit., p. 124.